Is Libertarianism A Realistic Posibility?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Aug 6, 2008.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Libertarianism is a belief system that allows maximum individual freedoms and proscribes a minimal government...and one that protects individual freedoms above all else.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

    Libertarian socialism
    Main article: Libertarian socialism
    Libertarian socialism aims to create a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.[45]

    This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of "authoritarian" institutions such as an individuals right to own private property,[46] in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole.

    Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include: most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism[47], social ecology,[48] and council communism[49] (or even communism itself, as it is described by Karl Marx or Lenin in a further stage of development of socialism).


    [edit] Libertarian conservatism
    Main articles: Libertarian conservatism and Right-libertarianism
    Libertarian conservatism describes certain political ideologies which combine libertarian economic issues with social conservatism.[50] Its four main branches are Constitutionalism, paleolibertarianism, small government conservatism, and Christian libertarianism[dubious – discuss]. They generally differ from paleoconservatives, in that they are in favor of more personal and economic freedom.[51] Agorists such as Samuel Edward Konkin III consider libertarian conservatism a form of right-libertarianism.[52][53]

    Notable libertarian conservatives include Barry Goldwater[54] and Ron Paul.[54][55].

    In constrast to paleoconservatives, libertarian conservatives support strict laissez-faire policies such as free trade, opposition to the Federal Reserve and opposition to most business regulations.[51] They are vehemently opposed to environmental regulations, corporate welfare, subsidies, and other areas of economic intervention. Many of them have views in accord to Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. [50] Others align themselves with Milton Friedman.

    Libertarian conservatives are more tolerant to social issues such as drug legalization and illegal immigration[56] than paleoconservatives. They see that illegal immigration is caused by the welfare state, that should be first get rid of.[57][58] They're more tolerant to gay marriage, although they think that marriage should be deregulated by the state and should be a church function.[59] However, many of them oppose abortion, as they see it as a positive liberty and violates the non-aggression principle because abortion is aggression towards the fetus.[60


    Is Libertarinism realistic? Would a true Libertarian government be possible. I have to admit, that I don't think it is a possibility. It is about as realistic as communism.

    Is it possible to have a government that would truely be laissez-faire? In order to have a government that works in a laissez-faire environment you need to be able to have a government without corruption, else various parties will be using government to gain a competitve advantage as is the case today. Is a corruption free governement possible? And why are not more so called Libertarians outraged over government corruption?

    http://www.libertarianism.com/definitions.htm

    More definitions:

    Lib·er·tar·i·an: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
    -- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    * * *

    "Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it."
    -- definition written by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (!), during the process of granting the Advocates for Self-Government status as a non-profit educational organization.
    * * *

    "Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same."
    -- Sharon Harris, President, Advocates for Self-Government

    * * *

    "Libertarianism promotes a society where no one is the first to harm (strike, defraud, steal from) another. If someone fails to obey this one-and-only law, then he or she must make things right again with the one who is harmed. The only legitimate use of force is self-defense. Basically, libertarianism is a restatement of how we learned to get along with each other as youngsters. We honor our neighbors' choices, and they honor ours. We don't start fights and only fight back when attacked. We try to make right any wrongs that we do. Simple, isn't it?"
    -- Dr. Mary Ruwart, Author, Healing Our World

    I like Libertarian principals. I just don't think a truely Libertarian state is realistic given the current state of our technology and society.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    umm joe. No its not possable and even if it was it would be one of the most unethical goverments possable.

    Everyone may hate tax but they are nessary to provide services. Health care and education go against the free market model which is the reason why the US system is compleatly failing. Goverments can provide services which go against the market like health, education, and electricity, gas, telecomunications
    and water in remote area's.

    They actually did a poll here before the last election asking would you prefer less tax or more services and people voted for more services. I will see if i can track it down. The libitarian party got almost no votes either (see if i can track those numbers down to)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Eidolan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    183
    Libertarian conservatism is not practical at all. They seem to fail to understand that there are negative aspects of capitalism and blame all the world's problems on the existence of government. Their proposed solution of removing government is impractical. Libertarian conservatism is utopian and idealistic.

    As for libertarian socialism: libertarian socialism could not be implemented at this time, but in the future, aspects of it will probably come into existence.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    Two things Joe, one what we started out as is as close to a libertarian state as could be, this is what some of us might call the classical liberalism. Which, I myself am with a scratch of anarchy in me.

    Second, the current state of our society is a result of years of incremental marxism as espoused in the communist manifesto. The central premise in all marxism is the freedom to, which also results in the idea that there is no limits on individual responsibility. Because it is society that shapes the individual, thus the individual literally is not responsible for his actions. He is responding to his environment, which is corrupted through capitalism, according to marx.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 6, 2008
  8. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Plenty of libertarians are outraged over government corruption. As to your main point about impossibility, no perfect system of government exists, nor will it ever exist. Denouncing libertarianism as a whole because we could never completely eliminate corruption is silly. Is a completely ideal libertarian society an impossibility? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's something we shouldn't strive towards.

    It's this gem that lets me know you have no idea what you're talking about. The US' current health care and education systems are not driven by the free market.

    Find me one libertarian who thinks there are no negative aspects of capitalism and who blames all the world's problems on the existence of government.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
    Socialism is the counterweight to corruption. Get rid of corruption and there is no need for socialism.
     
  10. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Not possible, and a silly concept.
     
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Not at all.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,166
    Back off a bit, and there are many libertarians who say that all but an almost irrelevant couple of the world's problems are from political powers oppressing individuals.

    Those would be right libertarians, extreme.

    And then there are left libertarian extremes, who think that all but an irrelevant couple of the world's problems are from economic powers (corporations, in the modern age, landowners in earlier times) oppressing individuals.

    And then there are general libertarian types, who find powers oppressing individuals come in several types, all generally suspect and prone to encroachment on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These lean left or right depending on their perceptions of the current larger threats.
     
  13. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    What state has come the closest to the libertarian ideal?
     
  14. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    The state of confusion!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,908
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,166
    And the people in Saudi Arabia are freer than the people in Cuba. And the people in Ireland, where neither divorce nor abortion is legal, building codes and bar hours and drug laws are strict, and the police have many powers, are among the freest on earth - more free than that residents of Denmark, or Norway ?

    It sounds like these people regard an income tax as a restriction on one's freedom - bizarre concept.

    How did income tax become so despised by the libertarian crowd, btw ? Is it actually felt as a restriction ? It's just a lower number on a paycheck, as far as my freedom is concerned - aside from having to waste a couple hours filling out tax forms made insanely complicated by the people trying to scam the system, it has no effect on my freedom at all.
     
  17. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Who is more free...a homeless person with no money and no job, or a wealthy person who needs no job?
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,166
    Relevance ?

    btw: Hidden in there is the assumption that the wealthy person is able to obtain services from the less free and impositions on the less free, including various coercions and restrictions on the freedoms of the homeless and jobless. You are assuming a context for this "homeless/jobless" vs "wealthy" designation that bears directly on a discussion of personal freedom.

    Change the context a bit: who was more free during the hundred years from 1650 to 1750: wealthy men in London who needed no jobs, or homeless and jobless Cheyenne Indians on the northern Great Plains ?
     
  19. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    You don't view a system where you have to automatically give up some of the fruits of your labor to the government, or else you're tossed in prison, as an infringement on your freedom? Your "it's just a lower number on a paycheck" to me is similar to Patriot Act proponents who say "it's just a few wiretaps."
     
  20. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    I'm not really following your example either...
     
  21. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Dont know much about the Cheyenne, but I assume they had work to do of some sort, homes of some sort, and social contracts to authority...of some sort.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,166
    I don't. I can labor all day and keep all the fruits, if I don't use the government's systems - no one taxes my garden produce, for example. I work for US backed money, in the US maintained and regulated economic system, because that multiplication of my efforts pays off

    The costs of the system I used to get "the fruits of my labor" are not part of those "fruits". If I lease a backhoe to dig a hole for money, the fact that I have to pay the lease fee or be thrown in jail does not infringe on my freedoms, nor does it decrease the "fruits".

    The fruits are what I have left over after paying the costs.
    People who live now as they did then are called homeless and jobless.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2008
  23. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Exactly which government systems are we talking about here? The specific functions you mentioned (providing a sound currency, maintaining our economic system) are roles a government should fulfill. But I have a feeling you're including more than what I would in those categories, as prior to the creation of the income tax those functions were still being fulfilled somewhat (and it's still only somewhat today, as evidenced by the devaluing of the dollar). It wasn't till the Civil War where the US had some sort of personal income tax and that was to pay for the war effort (another danger of the income tax, it gives big government politician's who want to wage war that much more power). That was eventually removed but the later income tax debates weren't about maintaining government systems but about imposing fairness. That only the wealthiest would've been taxed under the initial conception was something nobody cared about. After all, the rich can pay, and so they should, was the reasoning.
     

Share This Page